Smith and Wesson 2 Piece Barrels?

G11354 said:

Are S&W revolvers with 2 piece barrels user serviceable like the Dan Wesson revolvers. Specifically referring to removing the barrel yourself should the need arise (though highly unlikely)?

Cant seem to find replacement barrels or shrouds for the two piece barrels, where as 1 piece barrels seem to be widely available. The tool for loosening the barrel nut also seems to be non existent.

Click to expand...

No, the S&W style of two piece barrel is totally different from the Dan Wesson style. On the DW, the barrel was tensioned between the two ends and that made for a very accurate, and repeatable, set up.

S&W is using a different approach and for the time is not releasing the tool necessary to change the barrels.

Kevin

the new S&W bbls are similar to the problematic Charter Arms two piece bbls. it is a pressed sleeve over a bbl. dan Wesson bbls were screwed on with a tool supplied with the gun.

they went this route because it's cheaper to process.

G11354 said:

Until they make the tool available it seems I will avoid the 2 piece barrel revolvers.

Click to expand...

eh...unless you're opting for the DWs, the alternatives don't have user-serviceable barrels, either.

JERRY said:

they went this route because it's cheaper to process.

Click to expand...

They went this route for it's strength when designing the .500S&W mag. The 2-piece design puts less strain on the barrel/frame junction, which also confers a bit of an accuracy advantage to the design.

It also allows for more room in the forcing cone area, so the newer k-framed Model 66 has a full sized forcing cone that's less susceptible to damage from high velocity .357mag rounds.

G11354 said:

Seems silly to have to ship a pistol just to have a nut tightened, though it is unlikely.

Click to expand...

There is no nut to tighten, and yes, it's highly unlikely the barrel would need re-tightening.

I thought they stopped making the K frame .357 magnums? did they make the forcing cone thinner or the frame larger or the crane/yoke different?

I guess I'm missing how a two piece sleeved barrel is stronger than a one piece.

JERRY said:

I thought they stopped making the K frame .357 magnums?

Click to expand...

They reintroduced the 66 a year or so ago.

JERRY said:

did they make the forcing cone thinner or the frame larger or the crane/yoke different?

Click to expand...

I'm no expert here, and I've not had the chance to examine new and old side by side, but it looks like the barrel shank on the 1-piece barrel is thicker and protrudes into the frame window farther. It might be thicker because it gets screwed into the frame with much more tension, but because it's thicker, the bottom gets ground flat to accommodate the gas ring, and the flat spot, in combination with the tension, acts as a stress riser.

JERRY said:

I guess I'm missing how a two piece sleeved barrel is stronger than a one piece.

Click to expand...

With the 2-piece barrel, the barrel is screwed into the frame with much less tension, so there's less stress on the forcing cone and on the frame where the barrel screws in. A T-shaped flange at the muzzle end of the barrel holds the outer shroud in place and supports the barrel assembly at this end. The barrel is screwed in with a special mandrel that fits into the barrel's rifling, which is why there's no nut.


As far as cost savings, you'll read this a lot on gun boards because it's a mantra that gets repeated so often. In this case, though, I'm not so sure about the cost savings. The 2-piece design might (or might not) make assembly easier and quicker, but by adding another part, S&W is also adding additional manufacturing, QC & inventory tracking costs that very likely negate the labor savings in assembly. If it were cheaper in the end, you'd think S&W would've gone 2-piece with all their revolvers, but they haven't.

The Smith 2-piecer is cheaper.

It's shroud self-indexes, where the older one-piece had to be indexed by the assembler.
You still see overly-torqued one-piecers with canted sights, that doesn't happen on the new two-piecer.

For the moment, if you need any barrel work done on those, it's back to S&W. (Re-barrel, cut-back barrel, set-back barrel.)

Dunno about stresses, but I've see photos of both the flange busted off at the front & the tube busted off at the threads at the rear.

Denis

DPris said:

The Smith 2-piecer is cheaper.

Click to expand...

Many of us understand you're a gun writer, so your words carry weight. If the above is true and based on facts, please provide details so the water doesn't stay murky on this matter.

If it's just your WAG, that's fine, but the clarity would help here as well.

Cast shroud, easy-to-machine inner tube, less time required in assembly.

And my words carry no more weight than yours.
Denis

No, I don't have a sworn statement from S&W, but it should be obvious to anyone with any manufacturing knowledge what the shrouded barrel accomplishes.

The old style S&W barrel is tricky to install, since the shoulder has to crush fit at the same time the front sight and lug clock up.* The barrel is made a tad long so it can be fitted to the cylinder to adjust the barrel-cylinder gap. And the frame to lug dimension has to be controlled so the extractor rod lockup will work.

With the two piece barrel, the inner part (the barrel itself) can be screwed into the frame and tightened to a feeler gauge like the Dan Wesson, then the shroud, with its integral sight and lug can be simply slipped over the barrel and the whole thing tightened up.**

The manufacturing of the barrel and the shroud probably costs about the same as the old style barrel. But early on S&W must have found that much of its manufacturing cost went to pay skilled assemblers. So, as in many other areas of their revolvers, they have chosen to design and manufacture them to be fast and easy to assemble, even if the parts cost is the same or even more than the older ones.

And no, I don't have that under oath from S&W's CEO.

Jim

*The pinned barrel allowed more leeway, but it was eliminated earlier in favor of the crush fit to reduce manufacturing costs.
** The use of a ball in the crane does away with the need for an extractor rod lockup in the lug.

JK

I would imagine that sloppy fitting and returns of guns whose barrels were over-tightened had something to do with the re-design, too.

Jim,
Slightly off.

The shroud goes on first, then the barrel goes in.

The barrel tube has the flange at the muzzle end that acts as a barrel nut to retain the shroud.
Denis

For use by trained gunsmiths only

S&W 337PD instructions that came with my revolver.

The older S&W barrels were made from a one-piece forging, then fully machined, rifled, and threaded.
On many models even the front sight was part of the forging.

If at any step of the manufacturing process an error was made, the whole barrel was a total loss.
Fitting the old style barrel was a labor intensive process that required a highly trained technician who could install the barrel with the front sight indexed properly, use a cutting tool to set the barrel-cylinder gap, and cut the forcing cone.

The new S&W two-piece barrel has an easier to make rifled barrel that can be easily turned on a lathe from a barrel blank.
The outer shroud is a MIM molded part that's virtually ready to install when it comes out of the mold.
This doesn't require as highly trained (or highly paid) technician who simply puts the shroud on the frame, inserts the barrel and torques it down.

If an error is made with the MIM shroud, it can just be melted down and re-cast.
An error with the inner rifled tube costs much less then and entire forged barrel.

So, the new style barrel is both cheaper to manufacture and cheaper in labor costs to install.

Dat's what I done said.
Denis

But dey dint get it.

Good point.
Denis

Denis, ur krect on de order.

Jim

You were close.
Denis